The film, A Civil Action was directed by Steven Zaillian. It was released in 1998.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The movie is based on a water contamination case that happened in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 80s. Trichloroethylene has made its way to the aquifer of the town due to practices of a local tannery. Many of the residents of the town came down with illnesses such as cancer. Anne Anderson’s son came down with leukemia and died as well as many of the other children in the town. She tries and tries to get an attorney to take up a case against the tannery which she thinks is responsible for the illnesses of the children. She has no luck, and she eventually finds her way to Boston. John Travolta plays Jan Schlichtmann, a Cornell educated personal injury attorney. Anne meets with Jan trying to convince him to take up her case. Jan is very reluctant and insists it would be very difficult to prove the accusations Anne has. Attorneys like Jan only take cases if they are pretty much sure they can win since that is how they take home money. After paying several visits to Woburn, Jan takes up the case with his three other partners. Jan has decided to do this since he finds out the tannery is owned by a large company name Beatrice Foods and the chemical in question is produced by W.R. Grace. These companies are industrial giants with rather deep pockets, so the case could mean millions for Jan’s law firm. The motivation of money persuades Jan, but ultimately Jan becomes vested in the case and continues to fight hard for the citizens of Woburn.
Jan and his partners mortgage their homes, apply for credit cards, and do anything in their power to keep the case and litigation process going against these companies. Jan keeps suffering setbacks as both companies keep dragging out the process rather than settling attempting to bankrupt Jan and his office. They do this by having the courts requiring various scientists and experts in the field to examine the situation in Woburn. Ultimately, settlement offers are given by the corporations but Jan refuses them. He wants closure for the families. Jan and his partners go into great debt, and the case goes in favor of the large corporations with his firm receiving a small settlement to cover legal expenses. Jan’s firm breaks up, and he is on his own. Jan continues to persevere believing that he can win the case on his own, but ends up in bankruptcy. However, the EPA ends up bringing a case against the companies making them pay million to clean up the water contamination under the Superfund Act. Jan ends up becoming an environmental attorney.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out the legal system and the power of the corporation as sustainability issues. Most of the movie’s focus is on how costly and time intensive it is to go to trial or even sue a large corporation. It requires a lot of financial resources. Many lawyers do not even take a case if they are not sure if it is for sure a “winner.” This is the mentality that Jan had at first. Lawyers are concerned with making money, and taking up a civil rights case or an environmental case with a little chance of making money is not enticing. Corporations hire the best attorneys, and they know all the loopholes in the law. One of the attorneys for the corporations gave Jan a weird look when he heard he was from Cornell and not Harvard. This is the type of snobby and self-centered attorneys doing the bidding of corporations. The proof required in the movies was rather comprehensive. The courts required Jan to pay scientists, excavators, and many of other experts. The poor definitely cannot afford to go to trial. Jan mentioned how lawsuits become a battle of trying to force the other side to settle. It becomes a money game, and whoever cannot spend anymore ends up either acknowledging they cannot continue or they settle. What’s worse is that many cases do not even go to trial. In the movie, Jan mentioned how chances are better of surviving a game of Russian roulette than winning a trial. Another major issue discussed was the power of the corporation.
The tannery in Woburn was the main employer in the area. No employee wanted to be the whistle blower and lose their job and livelihood. They wouldn’t be able to make ends meet. Fortunately, people eventually did come forward in the movie. Also, the corporation has the access to the best legal resources out there. It can afford to drag out the legal process, so the other side ends up broke. This makes it rather difficult to bring the culprit to justice. Corporations do not mind settling either. Usually this means they payout a lot less than if the case made it to court.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling parts of the film for me were Jan’s discussions of the legal system. I mentioned earlier how Jan talked about how most cases never make it to trial because it becomes a battle of who has the most money to compete. From my general knowledge of how the system works, this is definitely the case. Usually, corporations end up settling if they have to. They do not want to face a jury that will make them pay up. The most compelling part to me though was when Jan was assessing the value of a human life. I found it rather disgusting that this goes into many lawyer’s heads before they decide to take up a case. Jan mentioned how a middle aged adult whom died from a slow death is worth the most. Children and younger people, especially if they die from a quick death aren’t worth much. I can’t believe a dead child isn’t worth much in the eyes of the legal system. Children who die are deprived of living a full life, and it is brutally devastating to their families. I guess this is just how the system functions.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was pretty compelling, but I just do not know how many lawyers would be passionate enough to risk it all to win. Jan and his colleagues mortgage their homes, took out credit lines, sold valuable possessions, and so on. I do not see many attorneys doing this for any case unless victory was certain especially if they received no retainer from their client. Also, Jan had the opportunity to settle for a large sum that would have paid off all their legal expenses. Given that their case wasn’t going anywhere, I believe another attorney would have settled.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The movie addresses a broad audience. Given its rating of PG13, it is appropriate for young adults as well. The movie makes an emotional appeal and shows the complexities, hardships, and money involved in large lawsuits. It is meant to entertain the audience while giving them hope. In the end, Jan didn’t end up winning out. However, the EPA did take over and the citizens of Woburn saw victory. This is rather inspirational to a younger viewer showing that if one tries hard and continues to chug along victory is possible.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think the movie should have mentioned other environmental cases to show the viewer that the situation in Woburn wasn’t exactly unique. It would have been nice if the film talked about other effects of the water pollution besides terminal illness. The goal of the movie wasn’t to be educational though, it was meant to entertain. This is why it focused on trial techniques and legal battles. Had it had a more environmental focus, it could have been more educational.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggest legal intervention, but does make note that this is costly and many times it does not turn out well for the client bringing the case to court. The movie does hint about whistle blowers and involvement of government agencies and different types of legislation. I believe whistle blowers are important to help stop these bad environmental practices. There are laws protecting whistle blowers, so I believe if someone finds something very unethical they should find a way to come forward and find someone in power who can help. Also, the movie ends with the EPA coming to the rescue. I believe the EPA should be more active in pursing cases against corporations. Recently, the EPA has been dominated by industry insiders who run the organization. The EPA needs to be more proactive. Congress needs to pass more legislation like the Superfund Act in order to protect Americans and our environment. Businesses will continue to put profits first unless they are faced with a roadblock that prevents this.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film made me seek out more information about the Superfund Act and a look at the discrepancies with what happened in the movie and what actually happened in real life. Apparently, the movie is pretty factual. Jan really did risk everything to win, and this movie came about after a book was written about the events in Woburn. Jan continued his passion for the environment that he developed during the Woburn case by testifying before legislative committees, government agencies, and so on. He even helped to revise the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Cleanup Statute, and he is listed as one of the best lawyers in the United States. As for the Superfund Act, it was enacted in 1980. The law applied a tax to chemical and petroleum companies and allowed the government to respond directly if dangerous chemicals affected the public or the surrounding environment. This was a huge step for the government. I believe we need more legislation like this. The law made corporations liable for hazardous waste and having waste sites and, it made a trust fund in the case a responsible culprit would not be found.
Annotation #6, 11/06/10
A Civil Action
1. Title, director and release year?
The film, A Civil Action was directed by Steven Zaillian. It was released in 1998.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The movie is based on a water contamination case that happened in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 80s. Trichloroethylene has made its way to the aquifer of the town due to practices of a local tannery. Many of the residents of the town came down with illnesses such as cancer. Anne Anderson’s son came down with leukemia and died as well as many of the other children in the town. She tries and tries to get an attorney to take up a case against the tannery which she thinks is responsible for the illnesses of the children. She has no luck, and she eventually finds her way to Boston. John Travolta plays Jan Schlichtmann, a Cornell educated personal injury attorney. Anne meets with Jan trying to convince him to take up her case. Jan is very reluctant and insists it would be very difficult to prove the accusations Anne has. Attorneys like Jan only take cases if they are pretty much sure they can win since that is how they take home money. After paying several visits to Woburn, Jan takes up the case with his three other partners. Jan has decided to do this since he finds out the tannery is owned by a large company name Beatrice Foods and the chemical in question is produced by W.R. Grace. These companies are industrial giants with rather deep pockets, so the case could mean millions for Jan’s law firm. The motivation of money persuades Jan, but ultimately Jan becomes vested in the case and continues to fight hard for the citizens of Woburn.
Jan and his partners mortgage their homes, apply for credit cards, and do anything in their power to keep the case and litigation process going against these companies. Jan keeps suffering setbacks as both companies keep dragging out the process rather than settling attempting to bankrupt Jan and his office. They do this by having the courts requiring various scientists and experts in the field to examine the situation in Woburn. Ultimately, settlement offers are given by the corporations but Jan refuses them. He wants closure for the families. Jan and his partners go into great debt, and the case goes in favor of the large corporations with his firm receiving a small settlement to cover legal expenses. Jan’s firm breaks up, and he is on his own. Jan continues to persevere believing that he can win the case on his own, but ends up in bankruptcy. However, the EPA ends up bringing a case against the companies making them pay million to clean up the water contamination under the Superfund Act. Jan ends up becoming an environmental attorney.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out the legal system and the power of the corporation as sustainability issues. Most of the movie’s focus is on how costly and time intensive it is to go to trial or even sue a large corporation. It requires a lot of financial resources. Many lawyers do not even take a case if they are not sure if it is for sure a “winner.” This is the mentality that Jan had at first. Lawyers are concerned with making money, and taking up a civil rights case or an environmental case with a little chance of making money is not enticing. Corporations hire the best attorneys, and they know all the loopholes in the law. One of the attorneys for the corporations gave Jan a weird look when he heard he was from Cornell and not Harvard. This is the type of snobby and self-centered attorneys doing the bidding of corporations. The proof required in the movies was rather comprehensive. The courts required Jan to pay scientists, excavators, and many of other experts. The poor definitely cannot afford to go to trial. Jan mentioned how lawsuits become a battle of trying to force the other side to settle. It becomes a money game, and whoever cannot spend anymore ends up either acknowledging they cannot continue or they settle. What’s worse is that many cases do not even go to trial. In the movie, Jan mentioned how chances are better of surviving a game of Russian roulette than winning a trial. Another major issue discussed was the power of the corporation.
The tannery in Woburn was the main employer in the area. No employee wanted to be the whistle blower and lose their job and livelihood. They wouldn’t be able to make ends meet. Fortunately, people eventually did come forward in the movie. Also, the corporation has the access to the best legal resources out there. It can afford to drag out the legal process, so the other side ends up broke. This makes it rather difficult to bring the culprit to justice. Corporations do not mind settling either. Usually this means they payout a lot less than if the case made it to court.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling parts of the film for me were Jan’s discussions of the legal system. I mentioned earlier how Jan talked about how most cases never make it to trial because it becomes a battle of who has the most money to compete. From my general knowledge of how the system works, this is definitely the case. Usually, corporations end up settling if they have to. They do not want to face a jury that will make them pay up. The most compelling part to me though was when Jan was assessing the value of a human life. I found it rather disgusting that this goes into many lawyer’s heads before they decide to take up a case. Jan mentioned how a middle aged adult whom died from a slow death is worth the most. Children and younger people, especially if they die from a quick death aren’t worth much. I can’t believe a dead child isn’t worth much in the eyes of the legal system. Children who die are deprived of living a full life, and it is brutally devastating to their families. I guess this is just how the system functions.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was pretty compelling, but I just do not know how many lawyers would be passionate enough to risk it all to win. Jan and his colleagues mortgage their homes, took out credit lines, sold valuable possessions, and so on. I do not see many attorneys doing this for any case unless victory was certain especially if they received no retainer from their client. Also, Jan had the opportunity to settle for a large sum that would have paid off all their legal expenses. Given that their case wasn’t going anywhere, I believe another attorney would have settled.
6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The movie addresses a broad audience. Given its rating of PG13, it is appropriate for young adults as well. The movie makes an emotional appeal and shows the complexities, hardships, and money involved in large lawsuits. It is meant to entertain the audience while giving them hope. In the end, Jan didn’t end up winning out. However, the EPA did take over and the citizens of Woburn saw victory. This is rather inspirational to a younger viewer showing that if one tries hard and continues to chug along victory is possible.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think the movie should have mentioned other environmental cases to show the viewer that the situation in Woburn wasn’t exactly unique. It would have been nice if the film talked about other effects of the water pollution besides terminal illness. The goal of the movie wasn’t to be educational though, it was meant to entertain. This is why it focused on trial techniques and legal battles. Had it had a more environmental focus, it could have been more educational.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggest legal intervention, but does make note that this is costly and many times it does not turn out well for the client bringing the case to court. The movie does hint about whistle blowers and involvement of government agencies and different types of legislation. I believe whistle blowers are important to help stop these bad environmental practices. There are laws protecting whistle blowers, so I believe if someone finds something very unethical they should find a way to come forward and find someone in power who can help. Also, the movie ends with the EPA coming to the rescue. I believe the EPA should be more active in pursing cases against corporations. Recently, the EPA has been dominated by industry insiders who run the organization. The EPA needs to be more proactive. Congress needs to pass more legislation like the Superfund Act in order to protect Americans and our environment. Businesses will continue to put profits first unless they are faced with a roadblock that prevents this.
9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film made me seek out more information about the Superfund Act and a look at the discrepancies with what happened in the movie and what actually happened in real life. Apparently, the movie is pretty factual. Jan really did risk everything to win, and this movie came about after a book was written about the events in Woburn. Jan continued his passion for the environment that he developed during the Woburn case by testifying before legislative committees, government agencies, and so on. He even helped to revise the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Cleanup Statute, and he is listed as one of the best lawyers in the United States. As for the Superfund Act, it was enacted in 1980. The law applied a tax to chemical and petroleum companies and allowed the government to respond directly if dangerous chemicals affected the public or the surrounding environment. This was a huge step for the government. I believe we need more legislation like this. The law made corporations liable for hazardous waste and having waste sites and, it made a trust fund in the case a responsible culprit would not be found.
http://www.salon.com/feb97/harr970205.html
http://civilactionchannel.squarespace.com/attorney-jan-schlichtmann/
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm